Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikecane | Hacker News Reader

Was he the originator of the streams, though? If not, the $90K made is not relevant because he was not the originator of the copy. If I understand correctly, weren't these links? Even if they were embeds, ala YouTube, I don't see the infringement he did.

View on HN

That argument didn't work so well for Napster, did it? If he had nothing whatsoever to do with posting the links --- and I think that's a fact in dispute, but, who cares? --- he's still a contributory infringer of the work if he set up a scheme where he benefited by willfully promoting infringing work.

Dispute indeed. Napster failed legally because had a central datastore that aided in transferring the music. They just weren't passing around links, they were passing around files, too.

I'm saying that it's unclear that this guy had no hand in posting the actual streams, but having said that: you can be a contributory infringer without ever touching an actual copyrighted work.

I know what you're saying and I agree; I just wanted to touch on the Napster point.

Where does it say you need to be the originator of the copy in order to be guilty of copyright infringement?

For instance, if you make copies of DVDs and give them to me and I sell them in my store, then we're both breaking the law, right?

He wasn't selling the DVDs. He was publishing the directory of stores and DVDs they sell.

He was not selling nor streaming (copying) anything, he was directing you to the "store" where you could watch streaming video.

Welcome to Rapidly Breaking Down Analogy City, population: you and me.

How about I'm making copies of DVDs and burying them in the desert at random locations, and telling you the locations, and you're selling the coordinates at which I've buried my DVDs?

a) You're still talking about physical copies, which is not the case. b) He is not selling anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com